Opinion: Supreme Court ruling on child sexual abuse material condemned

I am beyond disgusted by the direction our legal system is heading, especially when it comes to crimes involving child sexual abuse material. On October 31, 2025, it was reported that the Supreme Court of Canada struck down a mandatory one-year minimum sentence connected to child sexual abuse offences, ruling it unconstitutional. The word that comes to mind is disgust.

Let me tell you something about the real world beyond courtroom walls. I knew a young man in this community who was caught with this material. This was someone who grew up here, someone whose face people would recognize, someone who seemed like any other kid in town. All the while he was hiding darkness most of us cannot imagine. He is a disgusting human being.

So when I hear people argue that possession of child sexual abuse material is not the same as committing the abuse, I want to scream. Maybe that is true in a law textbook. But in reality, if you are downloading or saving those images, you are contributing to the abuse. You are creating demand. You are taking pleasure in a child’s suffering. You are enabling the very crimes that destroyed the lives of real children. You are a sick pervert. Period.

Right now, the Criminal Code sets out mandatory minimum penalties for certain child sexual abuse material offences. For possession or accessing, the minimum sentence has been one year if the Crown proceeded by indictment, and six months if by summary conviction. Courts in some provinces have already struck down mandatory minimums for related child sexual abuse offences, and now this latest Supreme Court decision signals an even broader shift by ruling that these kinds of minimums can violate the Charter’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

I am done pretending Canada does not have a justice crisis. We do. This is not just a legal failure. It is a moral collapse.

A few weeks ago in Calgary, I watched a police officer write speeding tickets while a woman sat ten feet away on the sidewalk injecting drugs in broad daylight. I asked him why he was not stopping her. His answer was heartbreaking. “Why bother. The courts will let her out in an hour.”

This is where we are now. A country where decent people are told to leave their keys in the door so thieves will not kick it in. Where drug use in public is ignored. Where repeat offenders are released after barely seeing the inside of a jail cell. And now, where people who download images of children being sexually violated may walk away with a lighter sentence in the name of legal fairness because that is considered cruel and unusual punishment.

Someone had to call this out, and I am relieved that leaders are speaking up. Premier Danielle Smith has urged the federal government to consider invoking the Notwithstanding Clause to protect mandatory sentencing for offences involving child sexual abuse material. Federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has said he supports using the Notwithstanding Clause to stop courts from overturning mandatory minimum sentences in cases like this. Some people panic when they hear about that clause. But if defending the most vulnerable in our society is not worth using it, what is.

We need to stop pretending child sexual abuse material is a complicated issue. It is not. It is simple. Anyone who possesses it is participating in the abuse of real children and should be treated accordingly.

Our courts have turned into places where criminals are coddled and victims are ignored. Where ideology trumps reality. Where justice for the innocent is sacrificed for comfort and convenience.

If the Supreme Court believes that even a one-year sentence for possessing images of children being raped is too harsh, there is only one word for that decision. Disgust. We all know what doing the right thing looks like. So just do it!